Dick Cheney: You Tell Me

John Derbyshire:

So far as the connection between 9/11 and Saddam's regime -- or any other Middle East regime -- is concenred [sic], most Americans probably share the attitude of a neighbor of mine, who, when I tried to raise the topic, shrugged and said: "Ah, they're all in it together."

David Adesnik:

My best guess is that Bush himself (along with Cheney) is deeply in denial. It's the same phenomenon we saw with Reagan. When you believe in something with all your heart and then stake your reputation on it, letting go is the hardest thing to do.

So is that an excuse for Bush's misleading comments? Hell no. His remarks were embarrassing and unpresidential. Period.

Tacitus:

On the one hand, you have the 9/11 commission stating there's no hard evidence that al Qaeda and Ba'athist Iraq worked together. This much we knew, whatever the Vice President might say. (And by the way, see Steve Hayes for evidence that not all proponents of this thesis are reality-denying hacks.) On the other hand, we also have the 9/11 commission stating that al Qaeda actively sought cooperation with Ba'athist Iraq, and that Ba'athist Iraq gave the notion serious consideration. Note that we don't know that Ba'athist Iraq actively rejected the proposal -- there's simply no evidence of followup. . . . [T]hat absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's something that I doubt most of those reveling in schadenfreude over this news will bother to acknowledge.

Instapundit quotes a bunch of e-mail that all purport to illustrate that "[the 9/11 Commission's] behavior to date certainly hasn't been credibility-enhancing. [sic]" Kim du Toit is busy posting pictures of his guns and calling John Kerry "Fuckface."

Tim Graham:

The liberal media now scoff at the idea that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had any kind of partnership, but back on January 14, 1999, ABC News aired a prime time report about links between the dangerous duo. Reporter Sheila MacVicar cited sources from the Clinton administration's intelligence agencies: "Almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."

Andrew Sullivan:

The NYT had the gall to demand that Bush and Cheney apologize. In fact, it's the NYT that needs to apologize.

THE DEEPER POINT: But it's also true, it seems to me, that even if there were no contacts, Saddam was still a clear and present danger after 9/11 precisely because of his record with WMDs and links with terror groups. One recalls that Saddam's official press was one of the few to openly celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the "Great Satan." Bush made the right decision - the only decision a responsible president could have made at the time. What frustrates about Cheney, however, is his inability to concede that the intelligence he used about WMDs was embarrassingly wrong. [WTF?]

LGF:

Evidently, unless someone finds a notarized contract signed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, agreeing to undertake terrorist enterprises for a well-defined purpose, there cannot possibly have been a connection.

There aren't nearly enough conservatives willing to call a spade a spade, but at least many of them are acknowledging that there is no evidence to back up the BS that Bush and Cheney fed us before the war. A dash of Clinton-hating, a touch of media-bashing, but these people at least aren't screaming and alleging that the 9/11 Commission is covering up evidence or anything. They're looking at Cheney while they're looking the other way, which is a start, even if it feels defeating. That they can acknowledge Cheney's BS and simultaneously praise the Bush administration over Iraq is still beyond me.

Posted by Kriston at June 18, 2004 2:09 PM